|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: tata Date: Aug 4, 2008 15:17
Because definitions (by definition) rely on language, which is thought-
based. And so how could something that is based in thought communicate
the essence of something that is beyond thought?
Language and reason are not to be discarded in the realm of
spirituality though, obviously (although many "religious" folk do make
that mistake). They provide signposts and pointers, but the signposts
by themselves are insufficient for understanding. They are only useful
after-the-fact in talking about the subject, and they provide
meaningful context, but they can never capture the essence.
And this is where so much confusion and conflict arises when trying to
speak about the "unspeakable truths".
Spirituality, in it's truest sense, is beyond systems and reason and
analysis and thinking
-- which is why science will always fall short
of uncovering the great mysteries.
|
| |
|
| | 63 Comments |
|
|
Author: Daniel T.Daniel T. Date: Aug 4, 2008 16:40
> Because definitions (by definition) rely on language, which is thought-
> based. And so how could something that is based in thought communicate
> the essence of something that is beyond thought?
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.49Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Aug 4, 2008 17:05
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:17:13 -0700 (PDT), ta nc.rr.com> wrote:
>Because definitions (by definition) rely on language, which is thought-
>based. And so how could something that is based in thought communicate
>the essence of something that is beyond thought?
>
>Language...
|
| Show full article (1.32Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ArtArt Date: Aug 4, 2008 17:11
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:17:13 -0700 (PDT), ta nc.rr.com> wrote:
>Because definitions (by definition) rely on language, which is thought-
>based. And so how could something that is based in thought communicate
>the essence of something that is beyond thought?
>
>Language...
|
| Show full article (2.24Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Aug 4, 2008 21:47
On Aug 4, 3:17 pm, ta nc.rr.com> wrote:> Because definitions (by definition) rely on language, which is thought-
> based. And so how could something that is based in thought communicate
> the essence of something that is beyond thought?
>
> Language and reason are not to be discarded in the realm of
> spirituality though, obviously (although many "religious" folk do make
> that mistake). They provide signposts and pointers, but the signposts
> by themselves are insufficient for understanding. They are only useful
> after-the-fact in talking about the subject, and they provide
> meaningful context, but they can never capture the essence.
>
> And this is where so much confusion and conflict arises when trying to
> speak about the "unspeakable truths".
>
> Spirituality, in it's truest...
|
| Show full article (1.23Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: Aug 5, 2008 00:56
On Aug 5, 9:40Â am, "Daniel T." earthlink.net> wrote:>> Because definitions (by definition) rely on language, which is thought-
>> based. And so how could something that is based in thought communicate
>> the essence of something that is beyond thought?
>
>> Language and reason are not to be discarded in the realm of
>> spirituality though, obviously (although many "religious" folk do make
>> that mistake). They provide signposts and pointers, but the signposts
>> by themselves are insufficient for understanding. They are only useful
>> after-the-fact in talking about the subject, and they provide
>> meaningful context, but they can never capture the essence.
>
>> And this is where so much confusion and conflict arises when trying to
>> speak about the "unspeakable truths".
>
>> Spirituality, in it's truest sense, is beyond systems and reason and
>> analysis and thinking -- which is why science will always fall short
>> of uncovering the great mysteries.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.78Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: Aug 5, 2008 01:03
On Aug 5, 10:05Â am, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:17:13 -0700 (PDT), ta nc.rr.com> wrote:>>Because definitions (by definition) rely on language, which is thought-
>>based. And so how could something that is based in thought communicate
>>the essence of something that is beyond thought?
>
>>Language and reason are not to be discarded in the realm of
>>spirituality though, obviously (although many "religious" folk do make
>>that mistake). They provide signposts and pointers, but the signposts
>>by themselves are insufficient for understanding. They are only useful
>>after-the-fact in talking about the subject, and they provide
>>meaningful context, but they can never capture the essence.
>
>>And this is where so much confusion and conflict arises when trying to
>>speak about the "unspeakable truths".
>
>>Spirituality, in it's truest sense, is beyond systems and reason and
>>analysis and thinking -- which is why science will always fall short
>>of uncovering the great mysteries.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.88Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: Aug 5, 2008 01:09
> BoFL
> As a scientist would say.
(snip)
What is a scientist?
Somebody that employs "language" ?
I guess that makes us all "scientists".
Language is some kind of spiritual mathematics.
ho ho ho!
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: Aug 5, 2008 01:24
On Aug 5, 10:11Â am, Art zilch.com> wrote:> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:17:13 -0700 (PDT), ta nc.rr.com> wrote:>>Because definitions (by definition) rely on language, which is thought-
>>based. And so how could something that is based in thought communicate
>>the essence of something that is beyond thought?
>
>>Language and reason are not to be discarded in the realm of
>>spirituality though, obviously (although many "religious" folk do make
>>that mistake). They provide signposts and pointers, but the signposts
>>by themselves are insufficient for understanding. They are only useful
>>after-the-fact in talking about the subject, and they provide
>>meaningful context, but they can never capture the essence.
>
>>And this is where so much confusion and conflict arises when trying to
>>speak about the "unspeakable truths".
>
>>Spirituality, in it's truest sense, is beyond systems and reason and
>>analysis and thinking -- which is why science will always fall short
>>of uncovering the great mysteries.
> ...
|
| Show full article (3.73Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: Aug 5, 2008 01:28
On Aug 5, 2:47Â pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:> On Aug 4, 3:17 pm, ta nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> Because definitions (by definition) rely on language, which is thought-
>> based. And so how could something that is based in thought communicate
>> the essence of something that is beyond thought?
>
>> Language and reason are not to be discarded in the realm of
>> spirituality though, obviously (although many "religious" folk do make
>> that mistake). They provide signposts and pointers, but the signposts
>> by themselves are insufficient for understanding. They are only useful
>> after-the-fact in talking about the subject, and they provide
>> meaningful context, but they can never capture the essence.
>
>> And this is where so much confusion and conflict arises when trying to
>> speak about the "unspeakable truths". ...
|
| Show full article (1.61Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
